Strategist, entrepreneur and commentator Craig Coogan examines issues with his unique perspective. NOTE: The views expressed in this blog are of the author (Craig Coogan) alone. They do not represent any organization, client, or business that he may be associated with. You are welcome to comment below. Thank you for reading!

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Go ahead, Impeach him

In High School I was a cynic. By college I was a realist.
After sobriety I became an optimist. I certainly still have my moments of cynicism
and realism – but in a world of difficulties and challenges I try to look for
the good in things. Politics makes it very hard. Putting a
good spin on bad news is something the Obama White House has mastered. The
House of Representatives voted to sue the President over
their belief that the Executive Branch hasn’t fulfilled its constitutional
duties on the Affordable Care Act by providing waivers to components of the law.
(Of course the irony is Congress has voted 37+ times to repeal the law they're suing the President to enforce.) The
White House has spun this to be the first step towards impeachment, and the
media has taken the story hook, line and sinker.

It’s not all fantasy - there are many in Congress who have
called for the President’s impeachment. Rep. Steve Stockman even handed out copies of Impeachable Offenses –The Case
For Removing Barack Obama From Office to every member of Congress.

Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "The President,
Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed
from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other
High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole
power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try
all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon
conviction in the Senate. Only two U.S. Presidents have been impeached by the
House of Representatives. Both were acquitted at the trials held by the Senate:
Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998/1999.

House Speaker John Boehner has said there were “no plans” for impeachment, calling the talk a Democratic tool to
raise money.

The LA Times report supports the claim: “On Tuesday (July
30, 2014), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said
the party had raised $7.6 million online since Boehner announced the suit in
June, including $1 million collected Monday alone after incoming House Majority
Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), during a network television interview, repeatedly
refused to rule out the possibility of impeachment.”

I wrote about the lawsuit last month.
Rather than attack any merits that the allegations have – the White House has
framed the litigation as the first step towards the impeachment of the nation’s
first black President.

The suit actually has legitimate concerns. Under the Constitution the
Executive Office is required to implement the laws that Congress passes. It
can’t just change them. In the case of the Affordable Care Act, when there were
difficulties in the roll-out the President pushed back a number of the deadlines
(notably the Employer mandate) without Congressional approval. This is
important because it’s not just a technicality – it’s a key funding mechanism
of the law. Historically as major legislation is implemented Congress and the
Executive Branch work together to amend the law to work out the kinks. In this case Congress refused to
make any changes, and the President just changed the rules claiming the ability
to do so falls under the expansive authority allowed in implementing
legislation. Usually a change that impacts the funding requires Congressional
approval, so this will be an interesting case because technically Congress is right. But Congress is right only because it abdicated its responsibility to modify the law as it has throughout history. By tying the suit to
impeachment, however, the Democrats are hoping to change the conversation to it being personal and political against Barack Obama.

The case for Impeachment against President Obama could be
strong, depending on one’s interpretation of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The
President’s kill list – where he alone chooses whom to execute without the
benefit of trial or any form of legal process could be defined as a high crime.
And that doesn’t include looking at any of the civil rights issues with the
NSA, drone attacks on foreign soil, etc.

George W. Bush could have been impeached for the high crime
of sending Americans to war for made-up reasons. Those lies cost lives and
treasure amongst other things. Then there’s his Administration’s bullying one
bank to bail out another in clear violation of U.S. law. Not to mention the whole torturing of people after 9/11.

In each instance – Obama and Bush – there are good reasons
to explore the actions. The political reality, though, is that there aren’t the
votes to convict – now or under Bush. Congress has been complicit in the areas
that would be explored for impeachment (in both cases) – so unless we’re really
ready to throw out the whole bunch, this is just a clever turn-about by the
White House. Oh my, is that cynicism creeping into my otherwise sunny disposition?